familiar with Wisconsin v Schultz?
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: familiar with Wisconsin v Schultz?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO
    Posts
    152

    familiar with Wisconsin v Schultz?

    Congratulations!

    From http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/wp-c...0/Schultz1.pdf :

    In addition, as noted above, this court agrees with Justice Clarence Thomasís McDonald concurrence and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to this matter. In essence, no State shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. As Justice Thomas demonstrates, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, not created by the Second Amendment, but secured or recognized by it. The right to keep and bear arms is therefore not to be abridged by any State law. Sec. 941.23 must also fail under the application of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    In sum, sec. 941.23 is unconstitutional on its face as overly broad in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
    Retain Judge Counsell!

  2.   
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Anubis View Post
    Congratulations!

    From http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/wp-c...0/Schultz1.pdf :



    Retain Judge Counsell!
    Uh, didn't 8 other SCOUTS justices disagree with him?

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Uh, didn't 8 other SCOUTS justices disagree with him?
    To a certain extent yes, but not exactly, Justice Thomas's opinion in McDonald was a concurring opinion. You have three types of SCOTUS opinions, majority, concurring and dissenting. There is a majority opinion in every case. This is the "winning" opinion.

    In almost all cases there is also a dissenting opinion. This is writen by the "losing" side and explains why the particular justice disagrees with the majority. There is no requirement that a dissent be writen, but in all but uniamimous decisions, there is one writen. There can also be multiple dissenting opinions, i.e. Justices can disagree with the majority opinion for entirely different reasons.

    In some cases you have a concurring opinion. A concurring opinion is an opinion that agrees with the majority opinion, (or very, very rarely a dissenting opinion) but for legally different reasons. The question at hand in the McDonald case was incorporation of the rights protected under the second amendment through the fourteenth amendment. Thomas agreed with the majority that the second amendment was incorporated, albeit for different reasons than the majority.

    Obviously a majority opinion carrys more legal weight than any other. However the weight of an opinion in any case does to a certain extent rely on the quality or lack of in the other opinions. The amount of weight that Clarence Thomas's opinion carries in future cases is yet to be determined.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by G50AE View Post
    Thomas agreed with the majority that the second amendment was incorporated, albeit for different reasons than the majority.
    I don't disagree with your dissertation on supreme court opinions (I've been admitted to the Supreme Court for more than 25 years and have filed petitions for cert and amicus briefs, but have never presented oral argument.)

    But the above quote is the critical point. 8 other justices agreed that Thomas was wrong on his incorporation method. A state court or lower federal court that relies on Thomas's theory of incorporation is going to end up with an 8-1 reversal on that issue.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    But the above quote is the critical point. 8 other justices agreed that Thomas was wrong on his incorporation method. A state court or lower federal court that relies on Thomas's theory of incorporation is going to end up with an 8-1 reversal on that issue.
    But we don't nessesarily know that. Six of the justices effectively did not supply their exact opinion, they signed off on someone elses.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Elkhorn, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Uh, didn't 8 other SCOUTS justices disagree with him?
    I guess I am confused? What does SCOTUS have to do with this? This WI district judge used the WI Constitution, the Heller and McDonald decisions to say, in effect, that since the WI Constitution guarantees the right to carry without harassment and that since 941.23 makes concealed carry illegal,, oc must occur without harassment. Since the Madison 5 got harassed just because they were oc'ing, therefore 941.23 is unconstitutional at the state level.

    This hasn't been appealed so concealed carry is only legal in Jackson county, where this ruling was made.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
    I guess I am confused? What does SCOTUS have to do with this? T
    Oh, I don't know..maybe this part:

    this court agrees with Justice Clarence Thomasís McDonald concurrence

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Elkhorn, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Oh, I don't know..maybe this part:
    Ahhh... OK.

Similar Threads

  1. Wisconsin Carry Challenges School Zone Law
    By bnhcomputing in forum Wisconsin Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-29-2010, 03:47 AM
  2. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-03-2010, 11:32 PM
  3. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. -- Open-Carry rally -- Sussex Wisconsin.
    By bnhcomputing in forum Wisconsin Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-18-2010, 02:07 AM
  4. Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-13-2009, 02:20 PM
  5. Open Carry Meeting and Training
    By 45acpman in forum Wisconsin Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-29-2007, 10:36 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast